Prom 16 - 24.07.13: Elgar, Bantock, Walton & Tchaikovsky

[Sir Velo]

I've just been listening to Falstaff again. In an earlier post, I said that I remembered it from years back as "stodgy". Perhaps "disjointed" would be a better word.

HS, presumably you would level the same criticism against Don Quixote?

For me, the clue is in the subtitle; it is after all a series of character sketches!

[ferneyhoughgeliebte]

I've just been listening to Falstaff again. In an earlier post, I said that I remembered it from years back as "stodgy". Perhaps "disjointed" would be a better word.

I think that is a better description - many of Elgar's scores need a careful conductor to ensure that the changes in direction don't "jar", but Falstaff does seem to need particular care that eludes many performances (even so fine a conductor as Vernon Handley didn't master it in his CfP recording). Michael Kennedy (than whom nobody is better informed about Elgar's Music) expressed similar reservations about the work to your own - but in a really good performance (such as the recordings by Barbirolli, and the composer's own), all reservations just melt away, and it stands as a wonderful piece of Music.

[ferneyhoughgeliebte]

HS, presumably you would level the same criticism against Don Quixote?

Good point, SirV - in my (listening) experience, of all Strauss' mature Tone Poems, DQ needs the most care from a conductor. It can sound like an arbitrarily put-together series of character sketches, but along comes Karajan (or Kempe or Beecham) and it sings; radiantly, gloriously.

[edashtav]

Good point, SirV - in my (listening) experience, of all Strauss' mature Tone Poems, DQ needs the most care from a conductor. It can sound like an arbitrarily put-together series of character sketches, but along comes Karajan (or Kempe or Beecham) and it sings; radiantly, gloriously.

I think you're being unfair to Strauss, ferneyhoughgeliebte. Surely, the faults that you find with many interpretations, and I fully share your concerns, lie totally in the hands of conductors? The work is complex but it has a structure of stainless steel. The introduction lays out all of the works thematic material and immediately transforms it. There follow ten fantastic variations on the introduction's material. Strauss tailors his "storyline" to conform to his "Themes and Variations" structure. Few of Straus's other tone poems are structured as coherently, IMHO.

[ferneyhoughgeliebte]

I think you're being unfair to Strauss, ferneyhoughgeliebte. Surely, the faults that you find with many interpretations, and I fully share your concerns, lie totally in the hands of conductors? The work is complex but it has a structure of stainless steel. The introduction lays out all of the works thematic material and immediately transforms it. There follow ten fantastic variations on the introduction's material. Strauss tailors his "storyline" to conform to his "Themes and Variations" structure. Few of Straus's other tone poems are structured as coherently, IMHO.

Yes, fair point, and I should have made it clear that I thought that Karajan etc realized the composer's score better than others, rather than suggesting that they "improved" on it - Strauss' own recording is also exemplary, and DQ benefits from two "big tunes" (which Falstaff is short on). The Strauss is also a set of ("Fantastic") Variations (closer, perhaps, to Elgar's Enigmas than to Falstaff), which indicates a looser structure than the "Symphonic Study" that Elgar suggests for Falstaff.

[Hornspieler]

I think you're being unfair to Strauss, ferneyhoughgeliebte. Surely, the faults that you find with many interpretations, and I fully share your concerns, lie totally in the hands of conductors? The work is complex but it has a structure of stainless steel. The introduction lays out all of the works thematic material and immediately transforms it. There follow ten fantastic variations on the introduction's material. Strauss tailors his "storyline" to conform to his "Themes and Variations" structure. Few of Straus's other tone poems are structured as coherently, IMHO.

.... to get back to the subject of this thread....

The Bantock was impressive in every respect and pleasing to hear one of our grossly neglected British composers highlighted in this prom season.

The Walton? Well we used to play these two extracts in our school concerts. For me, where they belong. Why not Capriccio Burlesque or Siesta?

Tchaikovsky 4th now and the audio range is grossly excessive to my ears. Blowing me across the room one minute and straining to hear whether they're still playing the next. The back row of the woodwind is almost inaudible in their solo passages, but I can't complain about accuracy or style. Was this anyone else's experience - and how was it in the RAH?

This is a good performance; spoiled by the poor audio balance and the acoustics of the Royal Albert Hall.

HS

[Sir Velo]

The Walton? Well we used to play these two extracts in our school concerts. For me, where they belong. Why not Capriccio Burlesque or Siesta?

HS, probably because neither of them have anything to do with Falstaff, while the Henry V extracts (particularly Death of Falstaff) dovetail nicely with the Elgar (coincidentally also called Falstaff) wouldn't you agree?

It's called programming, innit?

[Hornspieler]

HS, probably because neither of them have anything to do with Falstaff, while the Henry V extracts (particularly Death of Falstaff) dovetail nicely with the Elgar, coincidentally called Falstaff , wouldn't you agree?

It's called programming, innit?

So what is the connection of Granville Bantock with Falstaff? Not to mention Tchaikovsky's 4th symphony?

HS

[salymap]

So what is the connection of Granville Bantock with Falstaff? Not to mention Tchaikovsky's 4th symphony?

HS

Is Elgar's Falstaff the work with the inscription When Chivalry Lifted up his Lance on High? It's a long time since I've seen the score/

[mercia]

Is Elgar's Falstaff the work with the inscription When Chivalry Lifted up his Lance on High? It's a long time since I've seen the score/

wikipedia says that is Froissart

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Froissart_Overture_(Elgar)

[salymap]

Yes sorry mercia, it didn't sound right for fat old Sir John Falstaff. I should have looked first.

Elgar put a lotof thought into his score details like that.

[bluestateprommer]

Because they think their wish to clap between movements is more important than the annoyance it causes to the rest of the audience and the performers .

One other possible, and mildly more "charitable" reason/excuse, is that the Elgar and Bantock works are both single-movement selections, so subliminally, enough relative 'newbies' in the audience may have taken it on themselves to applaud at a "break in the music" when it came to Tchaik 4, i.e. they may not have known better. They probably didn't purchase the program either, to realize in advance the unity of Tchaik 4. (OK, there wasn't applause between the two short Walton movements, but those were short, after all.) Plus, the rather up-tempo and high octane conclusion of the 1st movement may have enhanced the "mood" there, in terms of generating applause. Granted, after the slow movement, applause was totally inappropriate. So credit to JvS for figuring out the situation and giving his own riposte, in his way, by just diving into the 4th movement of the Tchaikovsky almost w/o a break, after the scherzo.

Overall, this was a good, if not great, concert, but then almost anything in the midst of the Ring-fest is almost bound to be anticlimatic, or a breather, depending on your POV. The most enterprising programming was, of course, in the first part. JvS had a few slightly perfunctory moments in the Elgar, IMHO, but given that Falstaff isn't heard nearly as often as Enigma, any and all live performances of Falstaff are welcome. The Bantock was a bit of a rhapsodic wallow, albeit a nice rhapsodic wallow, and it was good to hear it revived and given an airing at The Proms, with excellent work from Raphael Wallfisch.